busses, sends, submixes...long post

jrich

New member
I recently have switched over to Cakewalk ProAudio9 from Sonic Foundry's Vegas. In Vegas you could route your audio tracks to different busses as submixes, and then all those would be routed to the final master bus. There were also aux sends though that functioned like the aux busses in Cakewalk.

I loved this option because I could control the overall volume of the entire drum set, as well as add compression. I could route a guitar mic'd with multiple mics to one bus, as well as the doubled track, so I could control all of its settings at once.

Is there any way to do this in Cakewalk? I have done quite a few searches, and it seems to me that the answer is no. I realize that I have aux busses that I can send my audio to, but they work as an fx send, where the original signal and the effected signal go through from what I can tell. I understand the basics of how these work, but I don't understand how I could use them to control the volume as well as fx of a group of tracks, where the fx are inserts rather than sends. I hope I am using the correct terminology.

I know that I could do an actual submix of the tracks to a stereo file and use the fx inserts on that track, because that is exactly what the busses are doing when a group of tracks is sent to them in Vegas, similar to the way the master fader and fx are applied in Cakewalk. But then if I realize I might need more of the snare, for instance, I can't just turn it up more.

I am fairly new to recording, but I've been reading a lot, and practicing a lot so I have a fairly general knowledge of how everything works but I've never used an analog board before. I do realize that the aux sends in Cakewalk function similarly to an analog board in that the send is how much signal is going to the effect (i think) and the return is how much of the effected signal is coming back. But from what I understand is this just taps into the track signals, they don't actually go through it as a submix completely.

Do most analog boards (not cheap ones, but "pro") have submix busses like I described in Vegas? If so, why don't they exist in Cakewalk? If not, then what is the proper way to do what I would like to do?

Also, does anyone have any experience with any other software programs that have busses used for submixes in addition to the aux sends? Is this unique to Vegas, even when including analog mixing?

Thanks to all who attempt to answer these questions. I realize this is long, and I hope it isn't too confusing. This one issue has been driving me nuts though, it seems to me that submix busses (i don't know if thats a real term or if I made it up) are indespensible, at least they make the job easier to me.

josh
 
options --> audio --> virtual mains

set the virtual mains number to the number of submixes, but have all the virtual mains (ie... submixes) route to the same sound card output.

i'd also set the clip on overflow checkbox so digital overs dont knock your monitors for a loop.
 
Hey cross,

Thanks for the response.

I kinda figured that there would end up being an easy answer to my question, BUT....I just went to options-> audio. There is no choice for virtual mains. Do you use Sonar? Is this option only available in Sonar?

Also, from what i can tell from the posts I've read of yours, I've gathered that you run, or work at, a studio? Do you happen to have an answer to my question about analog consoles?

thanks,
josh
 
jrich - yeah, I believe the concept of VMains was introduced in Sonar. PA9's mains were fixed to whatever hardware you had installed.

Here's an idea to try that might work. Set your tracks to feed the Bus(es) pre-fader, and then turn each Track volume all the way down. Use the track Send to control the individual volume of each track going to the Bus, and use the Bus Return to control the overall volume of the submix within the mix. Then use the wet/dry ratio on your FX to control the amount of FX being applied.

I've never tried this, but it seems like it should work (at least until you upgrade to Sonar :) )
 
dachay2tnr is right. what i described to you is Sonar functionality which didn't exist in PA9.

if you want to control all of your drum tracks as a submix, then group the faders. the same applies to your guitar tracks. it does mean that you'd be applying any Eq or Compression to individual tracks instead of submixes, but that's good. why should you compress the snare if the kick is the offender?

once your tracks are grouped moving the fader on one of the grouped tracks moves it for the others as well.

of course having all of those FX inserts on each track means you either need a strong machine or your dealing with minimal (less than 16) tracks.

i prefer grouping faders rather than creating submixes.

go into the console view, and right click over a track fader. when the popup menu appears glide to group and choose a color. just pick the same color for any other faders you want in this group.
 
dachay,

Thanks, I might try that. I think I read that in one of the posts I found while searching, but the way you said it now helped me understand it better. It seems like the only way to do what I am wanting to do, unfortunately it seems like I could run into a lot of wierd issues. I'd prefer to just upgrade to Sonar, but that isn't an option :(

Cross,

Thats actually what I was planning on doing. But for the drums I wanted to add a light limiter because I was getting some nasty peaks on the overheads, snare, and kick that comp wouldn't tame because of an extremely sporadic drummer. I have separate comp/gate/eq on all but I'd rather be able to use one limiter than 3. Plus when I have guitars panned right and left, I'd rather have a submix that I can apply comp and eq too than having to do it to both tracks.

I have a fairly strong maching athlon xp1800. 7200rpm 60gig hd. But I also have way more than 16 tracks.
 
that's true jrich.

the only way to get around the guitar issue would be to bounce the two mono tracks into a single stereo track.

I have a mackie 1604 vlz pro, which i really love but am slowly starting to outgrow. and when i say outgrow i'm not referring to the number of channels, i'm referring to the quality of the pre-amps. for the money, i didn't see a better mixer on the market when i bought the 1604.

I use 6 channels for analog stuff, 4 channels for a roland xv-3080, and 6 channels for an ASR-x drum machine. i can only record 8 channels at any given moment because of my sound card.
 
I have Sonar 2XL running on a fairly strong PC...

Dumb question- How does grouping say, 6 or 7 drum tracks compare to sending them to a separate Virtual Main? I tend to get decent mix reviews lately in the MP3 clinic, but I feel like I could be getting better sound and control. Obviously Sonar is a complex and comprehensive piece of software, so I tend to feel like I'm missing something! LOL!

Hopefully the question isn't tooooo broad!
 
it's not necessarily better. it depends on what your using it for.

like jrich pointed out if you have disjoint tracks that you want to apply a single dynamics processing tool to, then submix is the way to go; however, if you want to control an aspect (like volume or pan or fx send) of a group of sounds while still maintaining dynamic control over each sound then grouping is the way to go.

i prefer grouping for drums because i can set the faders for my percussion into a group and then have individual compressors on each drum track (as necessary).

and you can set the value of the group to relative levels so that the change in the individual tracks that make up the group dont have to be linear.
 
Back
Top